MINISTER'S PUFF AND NONSENSE

The Ludicrous Laws On Cannabis Must Be Changed To Reflect Reality

On the Today programme yesterday morning, Jack Cunningham, who - for the
next few days at least - is the minister for the cabinet office,
re-affirmed that the government was "not persuaded" by the arguments in
favour of legalisation of cannabis. It is a fine phrase, "not persuaded",
although when used by a minister, it may be taken to mean the government
was not open to persuasion in the first place.

Dr Cunningham was replying to remarks by Lord McCluskie, the
longest-serving Scottish judge, who wondered whether the police might be
doing more useful things than chasing pot-smokers. "No one is listening,"
Lord McCluskie said. "Do the penalties we impose deter? The statistics tell
plainly that they do not."

The response from Dr Cunningham was predictable, but his logic was not.
Indeed, one can only surmise that he had just come from an all-night party
at which he had been passed some very serious skunk indeed, and was now
seeing pink elephants crawling out of Jim Naughtie's head. "There is no
doubt," he blathered, "that if you were to legalise cannabis - have
cannabis freely available on the streets - it would simply facilitate the
work of drug pushers and drug traffickers to get into areas, where young
people particularly are, to push other drugs too."

It is, of course, far from unusual for ministers to talk cobblers early in
the morning. It is quite unusual for them to be absolutely 180 degrees from
the obvious truth. Far from facilitating the work of "pushers", any
regularisation of this law would destroy the current fragile supply lines.
The existing retailers - clever-dick teenagers in playgrounds, guys called
Dave in dodgy pubs, large men behind spyholes and steel-reinforced doors in
tower blocks - would be out of the cannabis business in hours.

Big companies would take over, offering nice packaging, assured quality and
lower prices (the major tobacco firms have been preparing for such a moment
for at least 30 years). The most substantial link between cannabis and
harder drugs would be removed at once.

Any sensible law would also include taxation, severe penalties against
driving under the influence, and the protection of minors. The benefits to
the community would include the following: more revenue, more jobs,
improved public safety, reduction of useless police and court expenditure,
and a return of respect for the law from a large and ever-growing sector of
the population who know that the current position is utter nonsense.

It would increase human happiness by allowing very sick people who spend
their lives in pain to have easy access to a substance that alleviates
their distress. It would reduce crime because millions of citizens would
cease to be criminals. It would probably also reduce the use of cannabis
since half the fun - the thrill of illegality - would disappear.

Sensible state provision of heroin where essential (and this at least
appears to be under discussion) would reduce crime even more by ending the
urgent need for cash by addicts, which is responsible for a massive
proportion of burglaries and muggings. But this can't work effectively
without ending the shambles of the cannabis law.

The combination of these two measures would make it far easier to crush the
illegal supply, and control the situation whenever new drugs come into fashion.

A few weeks ago Dr Cunningham told the Commons that his "drugs tsar" (what
a fatuous phrase that is) was aiming to halve the proportion of under-25s
who use heroin and cocaine, to double the number of users in treatment
programmes and to halve the level of repeat offences, all by 2008.
Meanwhile, by 2002, the tsar would increase by a third the amount of assets
seized from dealers. "When you consider," wrote Matthew Parris in the
Times, "that these rocketing sums must (if targets are being hit) be seized
from a nose-diving drugs trade, it becomes plain that in about 2017 the
assets seized will exceed the asses seizable." He also said it was obvious
that Dr Cunningham did not believe a word he was saying.

No one believes a word. The policy towards drugs continues the way it does
- -not merely useless but palpably counter-productive - because this is
politics, not government. Labour's leaders calculated long ago that there
were no votes in doing anything else. They have guessed that druggies are
either Labour supporters, or abstainers ("Wassa point, man?") when it comes
to voting.

Changing the law would stir up hysteria from the Conservative front-bench,
the Daily Mail and the Sun for no obvious gain. It would send out precisely
the wrong signals about the Labour party as a whole. And it would upset the
White House, which goes through this same charade but at more expense and
greater futility. Best to leave it alone, let the law continue to be a
mockery, and let ministers talk drivel whenever the subject is raised.